Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will be supporting this motion. I think it is a good motion. I specifically wanted to speak to the suggestion that we need another fuel subsidy.
I did a statement last week about fuel subsidies and suggested that the next time we do one, we have to get it right. We have to make sure the thing meets the objectives that we set out for it. I think the last fuel subsidy that we did, although it was well intentioned, I tend to think that we may have rushed it through and not taken the time to flush out the details that were necessary.
I think this is evidenced by the uptake in the last program of 70 percent of the original budget was spent, Mr. Speaker. I think that is why I asked the written question today about this 70 percent uptake, and why we excluded so many residents and did not allow everyone to have some relief.
I think the next time we do this, we have to look at it for small businesses as well as individuals. There is a perception that small business can simply pass on the added costs into the price of their goods, and residents, at the end of the chain, will end up paying these costs. It is not always the case, Mr. Speaker. I think oftentimes, small business in small markets are not pricing their goods based on the cost of goods, but often on what the market will bear. In smaller communities, this is more likely the case in many instances.
I think we have to look at something that provides relief to small business, and I do not think that this has to be contrary to other initiatives that the government has going on at the same time. I think we could sit here forever waiting for relief if we waited for all of this government's strategies to come to bear, Mr. Speaker. I think we have to move more quickly than that.
I also believe that the next time we get into a subsidy situation, we should not exclude people on the basis of income. We saw situations where there were people making well below the threshold who, for one reason or another, were getting a slight line on their cheque that suggested part of their wage was a fuel subsidy, they were automatically excluded.
There were other people making a few dollars over the cutoff, yet they were running a larger home because they may have had lots of children, big families, one income in the family, they still did not qualify, Mr. Speaker. I think that is a shame. I think these things have to be based on expenditure. If people are paying for fuel, they should be getting relief. I think that should be the only criteria, Mr. Speaker.
Again, I think this is a good motion. I was disappointed that the government did not support this the other day. I am glad to hear Mr. Handley state that he agrees in principle. I believe the time is now for action on the part of this government to provide relief to all of our residents. I hope the government will take this motion and our recommendations seriously. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.